Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Matt: Alright, so at this point I will hand it off to Keone. So Keone, please take it
away. Keone: Aloha everybody. Thank you guys for
attending our webinar and you know one of the things that often is asked of us is whether
or not we have sample applications or if we have any ways of helping you guys see what
ANA accepts or what is an ANA funded grant and often times we can't do that because that
is part of the property of the organizations that have received the grant awards. One of
the things that you need to understand is that when you start looking at writing a grant,
we all do it from our own experience. We all do it from what we have seen before, what
we have been told, what we have been experienced with in receiving grants and sometimes in
having grants that are not funded. That can be a really, really important step in you
becoming a better grant writer. So when we look at the panel review process, we're not
just looking at what you can give to the panel review itself, although that is very, very
important, but what you should look at is what you take away from it and one of the
things that you take away is that you really have the ability to see many, many different
grants at different levels - grant applications, I should say, at different levels. So in this
way you can see what the focus is, because you are in a situation where you can be discussing
these things with other people who have had the experience of writing grants or have experience
of actually receiving grants prior to this. So why should you apply? Well, it's the best
way to take your grant writing at the next level. You receive intensive training from
ANA staff. You read and score. You are the one that is actually giving scores of real
ANA applications. You meet other grant writers. You can widen your field and you meet native
community leaders from across the nation. So it gives you a bigger perspective and on
top of all of this you get paid. (Pause and sound of pages turning.) Now ANA is updating
the application process, so the best way to apply to be a panel reviewer is to send an
e-mail to anareviewer@acf.hhs.gov to indicate your interest. Make sure that you add that
e-mail address to your 'friends list' to make sure that the reply doesn't go into your spam
folder or get bounced back and that has happened in the past. Eventually, the form and information
will be posted on the Objective Panel Review Page on the ANA website which is found under
the Grants heading. Once you have sent an e-mail to anareviewer@acf.hhs.gov, you either
receive a form over e-mail or be instructed to check the website once the form is available.
Even if you have applied before you can apply again and I would really, really actually
tell you guys that you should apply again, because this is a new process and you know
just to ensure that your name is in the pool, you should apply again. Just make sure that
you can take the time off necessary and we are looking at a process that may be two weeks
in doing the panel review. Of course it's... It will allow you to put as much effort as
you can into each application, because each application represents a project and a community
that they feel has a need in that community. You're expected to put in full-time hours
and that's really, really... That's really important for you to understand. When we have
on-site panel reviews, which we have had in the past, it's been... For those of you who
have participated, you know how intensive it can get. Now the virtual panel reviews
are not as intensive per se, but it can be and you should expect to put in the hours
necessary. Again, realize that each of the applications that you read represents a project
that fulfills a problem for a community and deserves these... Just as you would want reviewers
to put their 100% effort into reviewing your application, you should do the same as a reviewer.
Okay, now that you know about all of the benefits of panel review and how you can become a panel
reviewer, let's take a look at the ANA objective panel review process is like. In each slide
we will go over a stage in the paneling process. We will also explain to you as a grant writer
and an ANA applicant, or possible ANA applicant, how they can take what you know about that
stage in a review process and use it to fine tune your own grant writing strategies. Okay,
for the first step, ANA selects reviewers from an applicant pool. The ANA selection
bases...selects based on availability of time, diversity across the nation, and related subject
area expertise. Again, they select the reviewers from an application pool. If you do not apply
you will never be selected. Matt: So we can take away from this as a grant
writing tip is that reviewers who are reviewing your application might not know much about
your culture. So don't use words that assume that they know about your culture. So these
people are coming from across the nation and they might not be familiar with the subtleties
of your culture or the demographics of your area or anything like that. So it's always
good to establish a baseline. Of course you don't want to get too detailed with like a
full on history lesson, but don't assume that they necessarily know everything about your
culture. Keone: Okay, step two: sign reviewer agreement,
commit the necessary time, and go through the training. Okay, ANA requires your time
commitment to ensure all applications are read, scored, and reviewed during the delegated
timeframe. The training is free and in-depth. So you don't need to worry about paying for
the time that you are getting trained. Actually, ANA will be doing it free and it would be
doing it in-depth. Again, although many of the panels might not have people that are
specifically aware of your community or cultural needs, ANA is working diligently to try and
create an even field to give you the type of resources that would be necessary for you
to make those judgments in a very, very valid way. Matt.
Matt: Alright, so as a grant writer you could take away from this step being that you know
reviewers are going to have to commit a certain amount of time to reading these stacks of
applications and it's a really in-depth look that they are taking at your application.
So, sometimes as technical writers we try to decide the format in which we are going
to present our information. You know there's definitely a difference - a subtle difference
in how you write an application if you know that somebody is just kind of quick skim reading
or if you know that someone is putting in the time. In this case, they are putting in
the time which means you can use strategies that allow for a little deeper read, but you
don't want to write novels. So definitely keep it concise and to the point, but know
that it's not just going to be them skimming the top of every paragraph - so just a little
subtle fine tuning difference that you could employ there.
Keone: Okay, now the third step is when ANA creates paneling groups and assigned roles.
You usually group for objectivity and by time zones. You know, ANA spans across the nation
of course, but it also extends into the Pacific into Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and the
CNMI. So there's a huge time span. So we are very well aware of it. So, ANA will pretty
much group the people within time zones that will be more applicable to their region. The
panelists, their role is to review and score applications. A facilitator reads applications
and facilitates the panel discussion. The facilitator does not score. The only people
that score is the panelists. The SAM's, a Sub-Area Manager, and PAM's are the Priority
Area Manager and those are people who have been experienced within the panel review process.
All of these roles will be further delineated within the training and so you should be aware
of these roles and understand that again the only people that score are the panelists.
The facilitator does not, the SAM's, or the PAM's do not score. Matt.
Matt: Alright, so as a grant writer you know we can recognize that there are multiple people
who are going to be looking at your application and it is going to be passed up the chain
as you work your way up to funding. So you know, if you do well then you will be passed
up to the next level and the next level. So what I have written down here, the grant writing
tip is to avoid the telephone game trap and if you have ever played the childhood game
'telephone' where like you know you pass the secret on to the next person and then they
pass that password onto the next person and by the end of the chain the message that comes
out of it is totally different than what you started with. So, try to use phrases, concepts,
and words that can kind of be passed on, that one person's interpretation is probably not
going to be much different than someone else. So if you can craft phrases and terms that
have sticking power, you know that kind of 'stay in someone's head' that make them remember
your application and then that's a lot easier for them to pass up the ladder or when they
are in their groups and discussing it that the same kind of little sticky phrases will
be put on the table as they discuss them. And of course, make those phrases positive
for your project. Keone: Okay, the fourth step is individual
reviewers read and score the applications. There's five to eight applications each for
the most part. All applications are scored to the Funding Opportunity Announcement criteria.
Now the Funding Opportunities have not come out yet - announcements have not come out
yet. They will hopefully be coming out in the very near future and so all the applications
are scored through that criterion and you have to understand that you have to stick
to that criterion, because that is what provides the baseline or the guidance for the people
who are actually writing the applications. When you read and score applications it identifies
strengths and weaknesses for each criterion. It also involves deep reading, critical thinking,
and comments and you have to... The hardest part of this step is looking at what you can
give honestly as a score that would be something that application deserves. One of the hardest
things is that we, as community members, each know that there are communities that are in
need of programs. There are communities that have tremendous needs. We have to understand
also that if we give the funding to this application when they do not deserve the funding that
that community might not get funding anymore. And so you have to understand that we understand
that each community has specific needs, but is that the right organization or is that
the right way for that project to be successful within that community and be very honest about
that because sometimes those are the things that pull at our heartstrings and those are
the things that are the hardest things to score and to write because we know the need
in the community. Matt. Matt: Yeah, Keone is totally right. So the
way that the panel review stays objective and tries to cut out that urge to try and
just award everyone because all of the grants are pulling out your heartstrings so strongly
and all the applications are pulling at your heartstrings so strongly is to judge based
on the criteria that is set forth in the FOA. And so as a grant writer you want to write
to the current FOA. I think we can't stress that point enough. So if you look in the Funding
Opportunity Announcements when they do come out, you'll see the full breakdown of the
scoring criteria for your application and so that's what you want to write to and in
order to make sure that your application is lining up with that criteria, you want to
focus on constructing clear logical connections to each criterion. And so this is like the
project integration idea of your application and that you want to create logical links
between whatever argument you are trying to make, whatever case you are trying to present,
between that and the criterion on which it should be scored and then to show how that
criterion connects to the other pieces that rely on that logically. So just make everything
clear and logical. Keone: Okay, prior to this if you are selected
as being a panelist, a reviewer, you are doing all of this on your own without meeting with
anyone. And you are looking at each application through your own eyes, through your own area
of expertise, and you are looking at each of these applications individually. Now the
next step is the actual paneling. Now this is when you discuss as a group with a facilitator
those things that you've observed in your own reading. The reviewers...each individual
reviewer justify their scores and discuss. So prior to this you are reading the application
and you are giving it a score based on the FOA's, the guidelines within the FOA's. And
then you come together for the first time and you start talking about that application
and you will see that people have various degrees of interpretation of what the application
says and everyone does it from their own area of expertise. So I think that it's really,
really important for you to understand this process. The facilitator guides the conversation.
The reviewer specify the scores and discuss. You guys discuss it within your own group,
yeah. And the facilitator guides this conversation and aligns it with the criteria set within
the FOA's. If there needs to be clarification then the facilitator asks questions for clarification,
the group comes to consensus, generates summary, comments, and the documents necessary - the
summary comment documents. Each of these comments are focused on justifying the score that you
have given and that is really, really important, because we want the... We really want that
applicant to know where their strengths and weaknesses are and you are the ones that are
going to be telling them that. This is a very, very important step in this whole paneling
review process. Matt. Matt: Yeah and so what Keone was saying about
the diversity of individuals, like that's a really key point. Everyone is looking at
your application from their own eyes, you know through their own experiences, through
their own expertise, through the eyes of their own culture, and so each grade that you choose,
as literal as you try to make it, will have a slightly different connotation depending
on each individual and that is why we review these things as groups, because you know it's
more likely that you will have a... You know with the diversity of opinions, it's more
likely that they will come to a consensus that is an average, right in the middle. But
you know ambiguous words could also have negative connotations depending on the individual.
So when you're choosing words and this is really kind of a subtle fine-tuning kind of
thing, but when you're choosing words try to make sure that... Try to think about whether
or not those words could have an unintended or negative connotation, because you know
every word has a synonym. So why not choose a word that doesn't have that connotation.
So even if you feel like the word you're choosing in a sentence is like the perfect word to
explain what you're doing or say like, 'this word takes the place of three words so it's
more concise,' normally that's a good approach, but in this case if that word also has some
type of negative connotation, it might not be worth those benefits to choose that word
versus something that might not have that type of negative connotation and spark unnecessary
debate in a panel. Sometimes you know they can get caught up on the connotations of a
word and start losing track of the actual case or argument that you are trying to make.
So you know even if it takes using three simple words instead of one concise and perfect word,
it might be worth it if you think about it this way.
Keone: Okay, after all of that the final step is all of these scores are compiled and agreed
upon within each panel and then it is submitted to ANA and ANA conducts internal reviews of
the top scorers and the final decision is made by the Commissioner and so it is really
important to understand that each of your scores are looked at as very...as a very important
integral part to this process. So all of you as individuals, as panel reviewers, will have
to understand that you have a lot of responsibility within that whole process because this is
what we are submitting to ANA as our suggestions as to what would be successful projects for
these communities. So it's really, really important that you understand how important
your role is. Matt. Matt: Right, so in... You know, this grant
writing tip is not really specific to this step per se, although it does apply to this
stage, but really you want to make sure that you dot your 'I's' and cross all of your 'T's.'
You know, don't let a little technical compliance issue jeopardize your chances at funding.
So make sure that you have all of the documents that you need to have. Make sure that all
of the checklist items that are listed in your Funding Opportunity Announcement are
included in your application and that you are as compliant as possible. Right, so you
could be... You know that will be looked at when you first send in the application before
it even goes to panel and then in the later stages if you do make it past the scoring
stage. So just make sure you have everything checked off and that is always a good thing
to do. Keone: Okay, the last step pretty much is
the scores and comments are finalized, awards negotiated, and the letter's mailed out. And
they are usually grouped for objectivity and time zones. So the ANA OMB, Administration
for Native Americans in the Office of Management and Budget, will negotiate the final award
amounts with the potential grantees. Now just because you see a certain award amount in
that there might be the necessity to clarify some of the things within the applications
and so sometimes the final award amount is not the same as what the application asks
for. The letters of award or denial are mailed. Obviously the letter of award says that you
are awarded the grant - your grant application that funds necessary for this project and
the letters of denials will be mailed with comment and this is to help the organization
increase their own capacity within their own application and grant writing and that's really,
really important. That's really important. Matt.
Matt: Yeah and you know just like what Keone was saying, even if you don't get funded you
can strengthen next year's application by incorporating the comments that you got this
year or you can strengthen this year's application by incorporating the comments that you might
have gotten last year. So that doesn't necessarily mean that if you go through every single comment
that you're going to be guaranteed to get the grant. Right, because it's going to be
a different panel and like we said these are humans who are trying their best to be objective,
but definitely they have their own perspective. So you know... But definitely take those comments
into consideration. What you probably want to do is take those comments that you get,
spend some time to compare those to the application that you submitted, and then call your Training
and Technical Assistance Center, because you know the experts at your regional TTA Center
can help you to make sense of those comments and to improve your application next year
and that's really the whole reason why we are here is to help you with your application.
So definitely take advantage of all of those tools to help improve your chances. (Pause.)
And thank you to the ANA room who is standing by. They just had a quick comment about the
acronym ANA and the Office of Grants Management negotiate the final awards with potential
grantees. So thank you ANA for that clarification. And so you know as we sum up with this whole
inside look at ANA panel review, there are some grant writing takeaways that you can
take from each stage. So definitely and this is probably the main point, you want to write
to the criteria in the FOA and show logically how the point that you are making connects
to the criterion in the FOA that it goes into. Use clear and unambiguous language. You know
avoid jargon overload. Try not to use a lot of technical words. Even if you do define
a technical word up front, just having too many technical jargon type words in a single
sentence or paragraph can make it kind of difficult to read. So simpler language always
works best I think and predefine those logical links to the FOA, but also between the parts
of your application. So you want to connect that problem to the goal, to the objectives,
to your project plans. So definitely link back and even if that means once in a while
putting in kind of a duplicative sentence or maybe a sentence that summarizes the paragraphs
or platform of your argument that came before the section you're in, that will kind of help
to connect it. So sometimes that might seem kind of redundant, but just a small little
summary sentence of what you read before will kind of help to connect the argument that
you're making next to what you presented before. You have got to remember a lot of these reviewers
are reading hundreds of pages of applications. In order to kind of make yours stand out from
that stack, you want to entice, engage, and inspire people. So as much as possible use
language that will engage people and make them choose words that will kind of help them
remember your application and to be excited about it when they come to the group panel
part. Right, so you know like the best case would be if a reviewer is reading an application
on their own and they just can't wait to talk about it with the rest of their panelists
because they love it so much and it was just so inspiring to them. That is a sweet spot
where you want to be. If everyone comes together in panel and they're just talking about how
inspirational and how great your project is, you probably have a little leg up. And the
best grant writing tip that we can give anyone - and this even applies to people who want
to apply for grants outside of ANA - is to become a panel reviewer because it definitely
will make you a better grant writer. It is like going to an intensive grant writing workshop,
but it's free. So you can take advantage of that and because as you all know ANA is one
of the most difficult grant applications to write, being able to master ANA grant subtleties
will definitely give you a leg up on any other type of grant that you're going to apply for.
So you definitely want to take advantage of that. And so then the next section now we're
going to go into are our Q and A section. We do have ANA staff standing by in D.C. ready
to answer your questions if Keone can't answer them himself and in order to ask a question
you are going to click on the 'raise hand' button in the participants box and you can
see a picture of that on the screen now. So you're going to click on that hand and a number
will appear next to your name and we'll answer questions in the order that they were received.
So at this time if you have any questions feel free to 'raise your hand' and you can
either ask that question when called upon by typing into the chat box or by clicking
on the talk button and speaking into your computer's microphone. So at this time I'm
going to hand it off to Keone and I see we have our first question from Leslie.
Keone: Okay, Leslie I understand that you logged in a little bit late and might have
actually not seen the whole presentation. Our PowerPoint will be available online later.
It will be ready in about two weeks. So you can see the entire presentation online in
about two weeks. Go to our website for that - www.anapacificbasin.org. Okay, we have a
question from Jilla. Oh, Jilla what is your question? (Pause.) Jilla is typing in her
question now. And next we have a question from Louise and Pam. 'Is a 501(c)(3) required
and on matching funds for American Samoa required? Are documents from this session available?'
Oh, this is from Fini. Okay, yes, a 501(c)(3) or a state designated nonprofit designation,
but I think for American Samoa it is 501(c)(3) - you will be required. Matching funds for
nonprofit organizations are required from American Samoa and the documents from this
session will be available within two weeks. And Jilla, 'Is there some data on how many
times a grantee is applying for the same grant? What percentage of the applications get funded
with the first submission?' You know I don't... I am not aware of that. Maybe ANA you can
get on the phone and get on the call and see and explain what kind of data is collected
by ANA for that. Richard: Yeah, hi Jilla. This is Richard here
at ANA. Thanks for the question. It's an excellent question. What I can tell you right now is
in the last year and the last couple of years the percentage of total applications that
got funded; it depends on the program area. I don't have it directly in front of me, so
these are a bit of estimations, but you can also go on our website to kind of get some
breakdown from other years too, but it's usually about 20% for SEDS applications of all that
we get submitted to get actual funded. Language is about the same, maybe a little higher and
that really depends on the number of applications we get. Specifically down to the level of
how many first-time applications get funded the first submission, you can definitely look
at that and I think that's a great question for us to look at it, but I don't have exactly
the results of that right off the top of my head and I will just address an earlier question
I saw since I am talking right now about what month the reading will take place. We haven't
determined that yet and the FOA is not out yet. So there is a process of after the FOA
is out and it's out for a certain amount of time and they exactly match (unclear due to
silence in connection) and the time will be in the Funding Opportunity Announcement and
then we have to take some time to process them and the reviews after that. So last year
for example our review was I think in June. Other years we have had it earlier in April
or May. So that can kind give you some idea about reviews we make. And we have to make
the awards by the end of September and August 1st for Language awards. So spring and summer
is generally historically when we have had the reviews. Thanks.
Keone: Thanks Rich for that. Pamela Iron, 'Do you know the month that the panel review
process will take place?' We are shooting for the end of April, beginning of May, but
that's a tentative date at this point. So it is really important that you keep aware
of all of... If you are applying all of that then you will be made aware of all of that.
Okay, just to give a little bit more clarification on the last question by Fini. The American
Samoa government -- only -- can request a waiver for the match. So, if you are affiliated
with the American Samoa government you can request a waiver for match and also a nonprofit
recognized by the government of the American Samoa is eligible - like I said before if
you have state recognition, but I'm not sure how that is in American Samoa right now. Okay,
Louise, 'Does ANA have a process in place for appealing the score received? Our community
had an issue with comments where a reviewer utilized information outside of our grant
application where the information was not correct.' ANA, again this is a question for you guys - but
this also addresses a question that was asked earlier, 'Can you look for outside sources
for additional information?' And in all honesty, you have to review the application in front
of you and you shouldn't be looking for other sources of information because it could be
- just like how this gentleman said - that that information might not be accurate. So
you have to judge each application for the application's merit on its own and do not...unless
it's questions for clarification. Like if you have some questions about the cultural
viability of this or something like that, then that type of thing can be looked at as
a clarifying question, but if you are looking for your own information about the organization
or something like that, you know I would really, really tell you that is not allowed. So ANA,
can you talk about that field process? Richard: Yeah, sure. Thank you so much for
the question. I think there's a few different steps. One is if you haven't already to let
us know specifically about the situation. There's a few different ways you can do that,
by you can either send an e-mail at anacomment@ACF.HHS.gov and I will put that in the chat box as well
or you can call the help desk at 877-922-9262 and I will put that in the chat box as well
- and kind of outline that you want to talk to us specifically about it so we can understand
the situation and once you do that we can also let you know some actually formal specific
steps that you're able to go through next step through any kind of giving process; but
there is a specific process in place to appeal that. I think the first step is giving us
a call and sending us an e-mail so we can talk more about it specifically and also give
you the specific details on the next steps. I hope that answers your question. You are
typing as well, but we will get back to that. All right, thanks.
Keone: Yeah and just as a follow-up to Louise, you stated that 'our community sent ANA a
letter regarding this, but have not received a response as far as you are aware of.' Yeah,
I would really follow up with ANA on that and as Rich said give them a call. It's all
about people. There is nothing that is meant to be secretive or anything like that. Okay,
Jilla, 'Will there be any SEEDS grants this year?' I can say from meetings that it is
planned and we are not sure when the FOA's will be out for the SEEDS applications, but
it is within the plan this year to include SEEDS. Okay, we have a question from Kahi
Brooks-Richards. Do you want to type that in or do you want to go over?
Matt: Hi Kahi, we see your question. 'How does ANA determine objectivity of panel reviewers
and can individuals submitting a grant still be panel reviewers?'
Keone: Okay, so 'how does ANA determine objectivity of panel reviewers and can individuals submit
grants still...submitting a grant still be panel reviewers?' Um, there are a lot of things
that go into that as far as determining the objectivity, and that's part of the selection
process. And this is another ANA question. I hate to have you guys answer a lot of these
questions, Rich, but you know this is something that you guys could probably answer over there
in ANA a little bit better than I can. Richard: Yeah, hi, this is Rich again. That's
a good question about the objectivity. I guess there's a few things that we always do. Well,
the first one yes, current applicants can definitely be panel reviewers but obviously
you can't... I don't even have to say it, but you can't be a panelist on your own application.
But then the second part is conflict of interest; so one of the things we have...all reviewers
look at is as soon as they see the application if they have any conflict of interest on those
applications we define what conflict of interest means during the training as well. They are
removed from that panel. So those are kind of the two specific things and I think the
key for objectivity is would a reasonable person from the outside seem...have questions
or concerns about that review. If the answer is yes, then that's probably not objective
and they should remove themselves. So those are some of the things and questions that
we ask in determining that. And also the other element we do is that you can't be a reviewer
in the competition that your application is submitted in. So what that means, if you submitted
a Language application you won't be a reviewer in the Language review. You could be a reviewer
in our SEDS or Social and Economic Development Strategies one, but not in the Language. So
those are kind of the three things that we do as well. Thanks.
Keone: Okay, thank you for your questions. We have time for a couple of more questions
if any of you want to ask. I will give a second for you guys to think about this. There are
a lot of things that is entailed with becoming a reviewer, a panel reviewer, and if you have
not done it before then please, please consider doing it, because... Or at least putting in
your application, because ANA is always looking for good reviewers that can be objective.
I think objectivity is very, very important and ANA is always looking for good reviewers
that can be objective. We have a question from Linda. 'Is there a reviewer application
online or do they send it to you?' Again, there is a process and the process is sort
of changing a little bit now. So the best way to become a reviewer - and we will recap
this a little bit in a second - is to actually go in and make your interest or make ANA aware
of your interest. If you look at a previous slide, ANA is updating their application process,
so just send an e-mail to anareviewer@acf.hhs.gov to indicate your interest and we will give
that e-mail again at the last slide. So, oh yeah, you got it. You got it over there in
the box, okay. So there is a question by Fini. 'Do we go through grants.gov?' Yes, you can
go through grants.gov. If you have problems with internet connectivity then there is a
process where you can apply for a waiver and you can send in a handwritten or a... When
I say hand written it's pretty much through your own computer, but a paper application
and there is a process with that and that will be detailed within the Upcoming Funding
Opportunity Announcement. Jilla had a question. 'Is SEEDS announcement different than SEDS?'
Yes it is and Language. 'Can the same institution apply for both SEDS and SEEDS?' You know technically
you can, but if you were to get it... You will probably... The SEDS one would come out
first and so if you are in the running for SEDS and you are given the award for SEDS
then you cannot take the SEEDS application... Uh, you cannot take the SEEDS award, because
the SEEDS award and the SEDS award comes from the same CFDA number. It is the same pot in
which the money is generated from and so technically you can. I would really, really suggest that
within your application see which one that project fits better with and apply for that.
And is there any clarification from ANA on that?
Richard: Yeah, hi. Thanks Keone and Keone, yeah you're exactly right. In the past and
in last year's FOA it does say that SEDS and SEEDS you can really only have one active
grant in each program area. So only one Language grant, one SEDS or SEEDS and SEEDS is a special
initiative under SEDS. And because this year's Funding Opportunity Announcements are not
public yet definitely you want to make sure you get on the ANA Listserv so you are notified
when those FOA's, Funding Opportunity Announcements are out. Also, our Notice of Public Comment
went out as well and we are going to try to find a link for that to put into the chat
box and that kind of... You can read that and that kind of gives you an idea on what
we are planning to do for this coming funding opportunity and it details, 'yes we're going
to be doing the SEEDS' and kind of a broad overview on what some of the evaluation criteria
will look like and other information. It's a preview a bit of at least what we are thinking
about for the FOA's... The comment period is closed, but that does kind of give you
an idea on what we are thinking about. And definitely when you have specific questions
on this - and these are all great questions - definitely work with your training technical
assistance providers like Keone and Matt if you are in the Pacific. Also, Eastern with
NAMS and in the Western Region and the Alaska Region and all of their contact information,
websites, and toll-free numbers are on our website, the ANA website under the training
technical assistance page as well. Because I think there's a lot of questions coming
up and once those Funding Opportunity Announcements are out as well all of those standards are
available to help you understand it and answer any questions about it as well. Okay, thanks.
Keone: Again, Jilla to clarify, even if they are different subject areas you cannot have
a SEEDS and a SEDS program going on at the same time because it comes from the same CFDA
number. So you have to have only one or the other even if it's different subject areas.
Okay, the point of clarification, this will be available for you to... This whole presentation
will be available to you to look at. Tiana, you asked about that and it will be available
in about two weeks, yeah. And we have one last question from Pamela before I wrap this
up. Pamela, can you type in your question please? (Pause.) As you're typing in the question
Pamela, I just want to acknowledge ANA for sitting in on this webinar, because I think
it's really important. Everyone has a real solid community interest in this including
ANA. So it's really important that they are part and parcel of the discussion and never
ever feel that you cannot call either the technical assistance offices throughout the
regions or that ANA office for any clarification for anything. So it's really something that
we are here to help you, both the ANA technical assistance regional offices and the ANA staff
in D.C. Pamela, are you close to finishing up your question? (Pause.) We will wait for
a little while more. (Pause.) Richard: This is Rich from ANA here, you know
some program specialists and I work closely with our training technical assistants and
I just want to thank you all for attending. Yeah, your role as reviewers, like Keone and
Matt were saying, is so important. You are really the first eyes on these applications
and you provide the scores that kind of determine what we look at as final funding consideration.
So it's so important and really if you haven't already please sign up to be a reviewer. If
you have done it in the past, double check and make sure that your information is updated
and make sure you e-mail the anareviewer@acf.hhs.gov if you just want to check to make sure everything
is okay and also if you're not already on the ANA listserv which you can sign up for
on our homepage, please do that, because that's the best way to keep up-to-date on what we're
up to and when the Funding Opportunity Announcements will be published and when the panel review
will be confirmed on the final date. So, thanks again for taking your time this last hour
in listening to us and hopefully you're applying to become a panelist. Thanks.
Keone: Thank you Rich. Thanks for that. We really have to start closing down our presentation.
If you have any further questions please feel free to e-mail your questions to us or give
a call to our office. We just want to review some of the things. One of the things that
I think is real important is that we give you enough to prepare to apply to being a
reviewer and our webinar goal was to recruit, prepare qualified and positive ANA objective
panel reviewers and to give grant applications a behind-the-scenes look at how their applications
will be scored and hopefully we have done some of that at least and I am sure within
the entire hour we cannot go through every single nuance, but hopefully this gives you
a very, very good idea about that. The upcoming ANA webinars... I really, really would suggest
you sign up for these, because these will help you tremendously. The next one is February
6th, 'Crafting a Problem Statement' which is essential for you guys to start off on
your application process and February 13th is 'Measuring Outcomes' and February 20th
is 'Native Language and Childcare' a joint webinar with OELA at the Department of Education.
Okay, other than that we would like to say thank you. Again, e-mail to apply at anareviewer@acf.hhs.gov
and you can e-mail us if you have further questions - matt@kaananiau.com. Our phone
number is there, 808-485-8182 and our website is www.anapacificbasin.org. Thank you very
much for participating and we look forward to seeing you back at another one of our webinars.
Aloha.